The HPCA Amendment Bill 2026: What the Proposed Changes Mean for Practitioners

Where the Bill stands now

Most pages about this Bill were written in May or June 2026 and describe it as "before Parliament". That is no longer accurate, and the reason matters for anyone deciding whether to act on it.

The Bill was introduced on 18 May 2026. Government papers released by the Ministry of Health show it was meant to be introduced on 8 April 2026, with the earliest first reading in the week of 27 April, referral to the Health Committee for four months, and referral to select committee before the 2026 general election. That timetable slipped. The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons reported on 21 July 2026 that the Bill was "still waiting for a first reading", and we found no record of a first reading, a select committee referral or a call for public submissions on it. (One regulator's July newsletter described it as having just had its first reading; we could not confirm that against any parliamentary record.)

Whichever stage it reached, the outcome is the same. Parliament was dissolved on 1 October 2026 ahead of the general election on 7 November 2026. Under section 20 of the Constitution Act 1986, as the Cabinet Office's guidance on dissolution explains, all business before the House or its committees lapses on dissolution. Lapsed business can be reinstated in the next Parliament by a resolution of the House, and a reinstated bill resumes at the stage it had reached. So the Bill is not dead, but it now depends on the next Government choosing to bring it back.

Our fitness to practise guide explains how complaints, competence reviews, professional conduct committees and the Tribunal work under the Act as it stands. This page goes clause by clause through what the Bill would have changed in that system, so you can follow the debate if it returns.

How the Bill got here

The Bill came out of a review of health workforce regulation that the Ministry of Health began in 2023. These are the dated steps we could verify in official documents.

Every change, side by side

This table covers the substantive clauses of the Bill as introduced. "Current law" is the HPCA Act 2003 as it stands today, which is what still applies. The last column is our plain-language reading of what the change would mean for a practitioner if it were enacted in this form.

Bill 287-1 as introduced and the Ministry of Health's Cabinet paper seeking approval to introduce it.

Ministerial directions and Crown entity rules

These two changes do not touch any individual practitioner directly, but they are the reason the Bill drew most of its criticism, because they change who ultimately sets the direction of your regulator.

What the direction power would allow

The new section 126 lets the Minister, by written notice, direct one or more authorities to give effect to a government policy relating to their functions under the Act. A direction can be about an authority's policies, its administrative or organisational processes and procedures, or a scope of practice or proposed scope. The examples in the Bill include directions about scopes of practice (including joint scopes), a shared registration service and accreditation standards. Authorities must comply.

There are two limits. The Minister may only give a direction after considering its potential impact on the safety and quality of health care, and a direction must not be about a particular individual or a particular qualification. The explanatory note frames the problem as the "independent and siloed nature of the regulators" and points out that Health Ministers in Australia already hold a similar power over workforce regulators there. The new section replaces the current sections 126 to 129, which only allow the Minister to step in when authorities dispute overlapping scopes of practice.

Crown entity accountability

New section 118A would apply parts of the Crown Entities Act 2004 to the authorities "with all necessary modifications": the accountability of members to the responsible Minister, the collective duties of the board and the individual duties of members (sections 49 to 60), the rules on subsidiaries and acquisitions, the Minister's power to review operations and request information, and Part 4, which covers reporting and financial obligations. In practice that means statements of intent and statements of performance expectations prepared in consultation with the Minister. The Ministry describes these as accountability requirements "similar to those of Crown Agents".

The current HPCA Act machinery for performance reviews, ministerial audits, statistical requests and the authority's annual report would be repealed in favour of that regime. Some things would not change. The Cabinet paper confirms that authorities would remain outside the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act, and that the Bill does not create a new agency; nor does the Bill merge any regulators.

The Health Practitioners' Review Committee

The Government's stated aim is a "swift review process" that supports "a steady and efficient healthcare workforce". For an individual practitioner, this is the change most likely to work in your favour, but its reach is narrower than many summaries suggest.

Which decisions it could review

Under the proposed section 105I, a person could lay a complaint about an authority's decision or direction to:

• decline to register them as a health practitioner;
• decline to authorise a change to their existing scope of practice;
• include conditions in their scope of practice or proposed scope; or
• vary conditions in their scope of practice.

That is the full list. Refusing or deferring an annual practising certificate, interim suspensions, competence programme outcomes, professional conduct committee decisions and Tribunal orders are not on it. Section 106, which gives the existing right of appeal to the District Court, is not among the sections the Bill amends.

How it would work

1. You lay a complaint with reasons

   The complaint must state why you consider the authority's decision unreasonable. The Bill text sets no time limit for laying it.

2. The authority is notified

   The chair gives the authority written notice, setting a date for the Committee to consider the complaint between 20 and 60 working days after the authority receives it. The authority has at least 10 working days to say whether it wants to be heard.

3. Papers or hearing

   The Committee, or its chair or a deputy, can decide on the papers after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to comment, or convene a hearing.

4. Outcome

   It can refuse a trivial or vexatious complaint or take no further action. If satisfied the decision was unreasonable, it can refer the matter back to the authority or substitute its own decision.

The chair and deputy chairs must be barristers or solicitors of the High Court of at least seven years' practice, appointed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. Other members are drawn from a ministerial panel of experts and lay people appointed for five-year terms, and members of a responsible authority cannot serve. Each authority would pay a share of the Committee's administration costs based on the number of complaints expected about it, plus the fees and expenses of any proceeding involving it. Because authorities are funded by practitioners' fees and levies, the Medical Sciences Council has pointed out that practitioners may end up paying for the Committee through their fees.

Professional conduct as a test for your APC

Today the core test for an annual practising certificate is competence. Section 29(1) says an authority must not decide to issue a certificate unless it is satisfied the applicant meets the required standard of competence. Section 27(1) lists the situations in which the Registrar must refer an application to the authority rather than issue it, such as a failure to maintain competence, a breach of a condition or being unable to practise because of a mental or physical condition.

The Bill would add conduct to both. Clause 8 inserts a new ground for referral: the applicant's "professional conduct has been inappropriate or otherwise unsatisfactory". Clause 9 rewrites section 29(1) so that the authority must be satisfied both that the applicant meets the required standard of competence and that "the applicant's professional conduct has been appropriate". Related changes point the same way: a professional conduct committee could recommend that the authority review a practitioner's professional conduct (clause 16), and earlier disciplinary orders would remain relevant to registration even after they end (clause 7).

The clause does not define "appropriate" professional conduct, so how strictly it would be applied would depend on each authority's policies and on later decisions. What is clear is that the professional standards and code of conduct you already work to would become directly relevant at renewal. Our guide to health practitioner codes of conduct compares what each major authority expects.

Interim suspension without notice

This is the change practitioners ask about most, and it is often described as if regulators cannot act quickly today. They can, in some situations. The Bill extends that ability to competence reviews and adds a right to be heard afterwards where it did not exist.

The Cabinet paper's reasoning was that the existing interim provisions "do not adequately protect the public". The disclosure statement records the trade-off: practising certificates could be suspended without prior notice where there is a serious risk of harm, with practitioners heard as soon as practicable. When the disclosure statement was prepared, the Bill of Rights Act vetting by the Ministry of Justice was still in progress.

Clause 20 and the Māori competence wording

Section 118(1)(i) lists, among every authority's functions, setting standards of clinical competence, cultural competence and ethical conduct. The cultural competence words currently carry a bracketed addition: "(including competencies that will enable effective and respectful interaction with Māori)". Clause 20 deletes exactly those words and nothing else.

The Government's reasoning is set out in two places. The Minister's March 2025 consultation release argued that some scope-of-practice rules place cultural requirements ahead of clinical safety, and the Cabinet paper says the deletion "will clarify that the primary concern of RAs is to set standards related to practitioner competence" while still recognising patients' unique needs. The Ministry's disclosure statement concluded the Bill was "unlikely to raise Treaty of Waitangi interests". The explanatory note describes the change but gives no reason for it.

Critics read it differently. In its 2025 submission the Medical Council said "cultural safety and good clinical practice are intertwined and must stay that way". The Royal New Zealand College of GPs wrote that cultural safety "is not simply a regulatory requirement; it is a public expectation", and the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists warned that removing cultural requirements "will be harmful to patients". NZNO's kaiwhakahaere Kerri Nuku has criticised the Minister for dismissing kawa whakaruruhau (Māori cultural safety) as political ideology. What each authority currently requires is compared in our guide to cultural safety CPD requirements.

The rest of the Bill

Several smaller changes would affect complaints, discipline and enforcement. None changes what you are expected to do in practice, but some would change how a process involving you runs.

What is not in the Bill

Some changes floated during the review did not make it into the Bill as introduced. It does not merge any of the 18 authorities or create a single regulator (the Act already contains a separate power to amalgamate authorities, in section 116A). It does not set up the Occupations Tribunal mentioned in the 2025 consultation release. The higher penalties, clarified scope-of-practice requirements and duty to consult the Health and Disability Commissioner that Cabinet had approved were dropped during drafting. It does not change your recertification or CPD requirements, which remain set by each authority; those are covered in our guides to Medical Council recertification, Nursing Council recertification and allied health recertification.

What it would mean for you, by role

Who supports it, who opposes it, and why

Most published positions respond to the 2025 Putting Patients First proposals rather than the Bill's text, because we found no select committee call for submissions on the Bill before Parliament was dissolved. We have only used statements published by the organisations themselves, and we say which document each comes from.

The picture is more mixed than a simple for-and-against split. Several bodies support parts of the reform:

• Medical Council: "strongly supports the goal of building a modern regulatory system", supports strengthened patient and public input, accepts ministerial oversight through letters of expectation, supports an appropriately staffed and funded occupational tribunal for registration appeals, and supports in principle amalgamating some authorities with similar risk profiles. It opposed ministers making regulatory decisions.
• Royal New Zealand College of GPs: supported a ministerial letter of expectations and an occupations tribunal for overseas-trained practitioners from comparable systems, with clinical, education and training expertise on it, but warned that "challenging and overruling standards of care will lead to worse patient outcomes".
• Council of Medical Colleges: backed updating the regulations in principle but said the direction "appears to put patient safety second to expanding the workforce", and that shortages should be met by investing in training.
• Pharmacy Council: supported patient involvement, closer collaboration and shared services between authorities, and suggested considering one regulator for pharmacists and pharmacies.
• Medical Sciences Council: said in July 2026 that it would make a submission to the select committee and encouraged practitioners to submit as well.

The sharpest disagreements are about the direction power, whether a ministerial committee should be able to overturn regulators' decisions, and clause 20. There is broader agreement on patient and public input, faster and fairer handling of overseas applicants, and tools against unqualified practice.

What to do now

Nothing changes in your practice or your obligations while the Bill sits lapsed. That still leaves useful things to do if you want to be ready, or to have a say.

• Keep working to the HPCA Act 2003, your authority's standards and code of conduct, and the Code of Rights. None of these is affected by a lapsed Bill.
• Know how interim orders work under the current Act, so you can tell accurate information from commentary on a Bill that is not law.
• Keep your conduct record and evidence in order: CPD reflections, supervision notes and any learning you have done after a complaint. These matter now and would matter more under a conduct test.
• If you are an employer, check that your policies for a practitioner being suspended or having conditions imposed at short notice are clear, because those situations already arise under the current Act.
• Watch for reinstatement once the new Parliament sits after the 7 November 2026 election, and for any select committee call for submissions.
• Follow your professional body, college or union. Several have said they will make submissions and encourage members to take part.

How to make a submission if the Bill returns

Submissions on bills are made to the select committee considering them, through the New Zealand Parliament website, once the committee calls for them. No call for submissions on this Bill was open when we checked. If one opens:

1. Check the version and deadline

   Make sure you are commenting on the current version of the Bill and note the closing date on the committee's call for submissions.

2. Pick the clauses that affect you

   Use the table above to choose two or three clauses you can speak to from experience, rather than commenting on everything.

3. Say what should change and why

   For each clause, say whether you support it, oppose it or want it amended, and give the practical reason, ideally with a concrete example from your practice (without identifying patients or colleagues).

4. Say if you want to speak

   If you would like to talk to the committee about your submission, say so when you submit, and keep a copy of what you sent.

Frequently asked questions